Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Arrangements have been made for Brother Jesse G. Jenkins of Denton, Texas and me to be participants in a four-night Bible discussion September 23, 24, 26, 27 in the Houston, Texas area. The subject which we will be discussing will be what is commonly referred to as the “College Question,” but which in this instance more precisely will pertain to whether it is right for individual Christians to form organizations like Florida College in which the Bible is taught as a regular part of the curriculum. As I understand the matter, Brother Jenkins’ objection or objections will pertain only to the “Bible Department” of Florida College. The precise points at issue will be more clearly defined when I quote the propositions below, upon which we have agreed, and to which we have affixed our names.

Periodically, over the years, the question of whether it is right for colleges, like Florida College which teaches the Bible, have the right to exist. This article is intended to be merely an announcement of the particulars pertaining to the discussion, and to extend to brethren everywhere an invitation to attend this discussion.

A few months ago, Brother Ernest Finley wrote an article in the bulletin of the Oak Forest church in Houston which dealt with the right of the Bible to be taught in educational enterprises, such as Florida College located at Temple Terrace, Florida. Brother Finley’s article was entitled “Fuzzy Thinking.” Several brethren evidently objected to what he taught in that article. Thus a written discussion has resulted between Brother Glenn Burt who preaches for the church in Deer Park (a Houston suburb) and Brother Ernest Finley. That written discussion has been published in Bible Standard, a religious journal published from Austin, Texas by Brother Bob Craig, and edited by Brother Kent Ellis. Bible Standard is a very worthwhile periodical for you to receive, and if you do not already get it, let me suggest that you order it by writing Box 3284, Austin, Texas 78764. The subscription price is $3.00 per year.

There was also some interest in an oral discussion on the same subject to be conducted in the Houston area. The Oak Forest church, via Brother Ernest Finley, contacted me to see if I would be willing to engage in such an oral discussion with Brother Jesse Jenkins, with the discussion to be conducted somewhere in the Houston area. Though I was not our seeking any debate on that subject, I am not averse to discussing what I believe the Bible to teach, whether privately or publicly.

It was at first thought that the Red Bluff church in Pasadena, Texas would endorse Brother Jenkins for the discussion, and that Oak Forest would endorse me to speak in their behalf on the point at issue. However, the brethren at Red Bluff thought it best not to involve the congregation as such in such a discussion, and instead proposed that some individuals would see that a suitable place would be provided for the discussion. They emphasized that since neither Brother Jenkins nor I believed it to be right for a church to contribute to an organization like Florida College, they thought it best that the congregations be left out of the discussion entirely. This suggestion, conveyed to me by letter from Brother Curtis Torno, appeared to me to be a wise one. Thus I asked Oak Forest that, they release me from my agreement to represent them in such a discussion.

Brother Torno wrote that he thought the Deer Park High School auditorium could be rented for such a discussion. Since neither congregation will now be involved in the discussion, I therefore have sent my personal check to pay for one-half of the cost of renting either the Deer Park High School auditorium, or some other suitable meeting place which the brethren in the Houston area will select.

Brother Jenkins and I have only met one time, so far as either of us can remember. We did have one rather extended telephone discussion about the proposed debate. Everyone who has made any remark to me concerning Jesse Jenkins has commented that he would be completely fair in such a discussion, and I hope to conduct myself in a similar becoming manner. Brethren have spoken highly of Brother Jenkins’ debating ability. I do not know how many debates he has participated in, but I know he has conducted several debates. My debating experience is limited to four, but that fact should have no bearing on the debate.

One thing I liked particularly about my telephone conversation with Brother Jenkins. I explained to him that since neither of us knew the other very well, it might be very helpful and save a lot of unnecessary preparation if we each knew what the basic line of attack and defense would be. So I volunteered to tell him precisely upon what ground I intended to attempt to defend the teaching of the Bible in schools like Florida College. My thought was that if my argument was answerable merely because he knew what it was going to be beforehand, then it really was not a sound argument to begin with. Brother Jenkins just as readily told me what his basic objection would be to the Bible Department at Florida College.

Both Brother Jenkins and I have been very concerned about the effect of a debate on this subject in the Houston area. We both wanted no part in it, if the result would be a division among the brethren in that area. Of course, it already is well known that there are a considerable number of brethren who take opposing views on this issue in the Houston area. We both sought the counsel of several brethren in the Houston area whom we considered to be knowledgeable about the possible impact of such a discussion. The reaction was predominately in favor of such a discussion being held. In fact, only one brother expressed to me any apprehension regarding having it.

Brother Jenkins and I shall approach this discussion as good friends, though we do not know each other very well, and trust that we shall leave after the discussion even better friends, by virtue of having come to know each other better. I feel sure that the brethren where he preaches would permit me to preach there, if I should have occasion to be in that area; and I am confident that the brethren where I am a member would be glad to have him to speak to us. If I am not mistaken, Brother James R. Cope, President of Florida College, sometime in the month of May, 1974 was at the Denton meeting house to present a series of lessons on the home, which he has presented in nearly a hundred places from coast to coast. This, to me, evidences a good spirit about the matter.

Propositions

On Sept. 23rd and 24th, I will affirm: “It is scriptural for individual Christians to organize, operate, financially support by contributions, and to utilize liberal arts educational enterprises, in which the Bible is taught as a regular part of the curriculum (as is practiced by Florida College). ” On Thursday and Friday nights, Brother Jenkins will affirm: “It is unscriptural for brethren to form a collectivity that solicits contributions from individual Christians, and that employs and oversees men in the work of teaching the Bible (as is practiced by Florida College).”

Two additional points are a part of our discussion agreement: “(1) Neither disputant will write a review of the debate in either Truth Magazine or The Bible Standard; (2) If the moderators write respective reviews of the debate, no more than one such review by each moderator shall be printed in either Truth Magazine or The Bible Standard. If such reviews are printed in either Truth Magazine or The Bible Standard, they shall also be printed in the other.”

Religious debate, when properly conducted, constitutes one of the finest ways to study a question. Ordinarily the principals of such a discussion come well prepared. They present their material succinctly and precisely. Those who attend are the only judges on earth who must ascertain which side is teaching the truth on the issue being debated. More than on nearly any other occasion, it seems to me to be imperative that those who intend to get the most out of such a discussion come prepared either with a tape recorder, or with a Bible, note pad, and writing instrument. Brother Jenkins and I hope to see you there!

Another Debate Possible

A few weeks ago Brother Bill Cavender, who preaches for the Imhoff Avenue church in Port Arthur, Texas, called me to ask if I would be willing to participate in a discussion with Brother Leroy Garrett. I orally agreed to do so, and have since written confirmation of my willingness to participate. Brother Garrett and I engaged in a rather lengthy telephone conversation about the possibility of such a discussion. Brother Garrett does not like some of the connotations that the word “debate” has, so he prefers to “dialogue.” I prefer that he “monologue” a while, and then let me “monologue” a while. It does not appear that this semantical issue will prevent the occurrence of the discussion. Brother Garrett is now supposed to be checking with the Proctor Street church, where he recently participated in a “Unity Forum,” to see if they will endorse him for such a discussion. The format finally agreed upon may be a little different than that which we usually have in a debate, but without doubt, there will be a head-on confrontation of ideas in the areas wherein we differ, particularly as these differences relate to the subject of fellowship.

Brother Garrett is a college professor, and thus the Semester break would be about the only time when he could arrange for a four night discussion. I think two nights are entirely too little time to devote to a topic of such proportions, and also personally am reluctant to schedule a Wednesday night session, for most of the churches have their Mid-Week services that night. So it is probable that this discussion will occur in January or February. A specific announcement will be made later.

I am reluctant to schedule the discussion with Brother Garrett much sooner, since I have given my word that I will meet Nathan Urshan, Radio Speaker of “Harvest Time,” in Indianapolis the early part of December. When I lived in Indianapolis in the early 1950s, Mr. Urshan’s program immediately preceded ours on radio station WISH. So actually he and I have already had a few debates! “Harvest Time” is heard weekly on 700 radio stations in 19 countries. Frankly, I am fearful Mr. Urshan will back out on his agreement to have the Indianapolis discussion in December. But he agreed to meet me, and Raymond Parnell (United Pentecostal preacher at Lafayette, Indiana) wrote me to that effect. Then I talked to Mr. Urshan by telephone, and he and I tried to work around two rather full schedules to arrange a mutually agreeable time. It seemed that early December would be most convenient for us both. Mr. Urshan suggested that their new 1200 seat auditorium would be much too small to accommodate the crowds which he expected to attend. So we discussed the renting of various larger facilities in Indianapolis, and agreed to share equally the rental cost.

For several weeks now, I have heard nothing from Mr. Urshan, though I have written him since our telephone call to try to finalize the debate arrangements. But having given my word of honor that I would meet him in December, I therefore am reluctant to plan to meet Brother Garrett until after this Indianapolis commitment has been fulfilled.

In the meantime, I am scheduled to work in gospel meetings at the following places, and with the debates injected, my schedule recently and for the remainder of 1974 looks like this:

Jamestown, Indiana (June 10-16)

Fremont, Ohio (June 24-30

Fairbanks, Alaska (July 28-Aug. 2)

Anchorage Alaska (Aug. 4-11)

Waipahu, Hawaii (Aug. 14-21)

Bradley, Illinois (Sept. 8-13)

Jenkins Debate (Sept. 23, 24, 26, 27)

Brown Street, Akron, Ohio (Oct. 6-11)

Wooster, Ohio (Oct. 14-20)

Sciotoville, Ohio (Nov. 11-17)

Indianapolis Debate (early December)

 

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, p. 3-5
June 20, 1974

By Roy E. Cogdill

Perhaps none of us like to be called by an epithet even though it may be descriptive, in a technical sense, of our attitude or action. When the Christian Church people “went out from us” it was actually because “they were not of us.” The use of the term “digressive” was common in describing both their attitude and action. In turn, they used the term “non-progressive” to label those who opposed their digression. Some may have been that,. but to oppose “digression” did not make one “non-progressive.” In general it was an epithet intended to discredit and prejudice.

When the present division arose over the churches building and supporting human institutions, the sponsoring church plan of centralized control and oversight and the pooling of resources by the churches, the adjectives “liberal” and “anti” were commonly used to denote attitude and actions. Many times they were mis-used and became mis-representations. Some of us have been represented as “anti-missionary” and “anti-orphan homes” and even “anti-caring for orphan children.” This is all used to arouse prejudice and is a device of the devil. In general, however, the adjectives “liberal” and “conservative” were accurate descriptions of actual attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures that led to a course of action that separated us and led”us apart. There should be no surprise when such a difference of attitudes toward the scriptures eventually precipitated division.

In the division over instrumental music and the missionary society it was and has continued to be recognized by historians that the cause of the separation was a difference in attitude toward the Word of God. Those who rejected these innovations did so because they believed that the New Testament scriptures constitute a complete and perfect pattern-of Christianity and the Lord’s Church. On the other hand the advocates of these innovations believed the Bible to be a book of principles rather than a book of rules and patterns. In rejecting “pattern authority” they claimed the right to exercise their personal liberty to apply the principles according to their own judgment. There may have been other factors that helped to prepare the way and to further the division when once it began, but fundamentally the chief and proximate cause of such division among God’s people was not social conditions, political differences, or economic status but a difference in attitude toward the Word of God.

This attitude that the Bible is a book of principles which we are at liberty to apply according to our own judgment or .,our own sanctified common sense” begets the concept that there is no positive, complete pattern of authority in New Testament scriptures. In turn, this attitude begets the commonly expressed idea that we do not have to find authority in the Bible for what we either. do or teach. Therefore, human judgment or expediency takes over and we cease to walk by faith. The Bible authorizes by teaching, and what the Bible does not authorize it does not teach. The ultimate conclusion of such thinking is a denial of the sufficiency of the scriptures and claims that we may do (among the churches of Christ) many things for which we neither have nor need any authority, How many times have you heard such an idea advanced by supposed Christians in the last 25 years? Today, from every quarter, we hear that there is no authority, divine in origin, except in a direct precept or command of the Lord. Necessary inference and apostolically approved examples do not bind and some of our young “intellectuals” whose teachings have been under fire, call such principles a “human system of interpretation.” It does not matter to them that throughout the history of what we call the “restoration movement” such principles have been the guide lines of brethren. It does not even matter to them that Jesus limited the teaching of the apostles to the churches, or those whom they baptized, to “whatsoever I have commanded you” and that an apostolically approved example had its roots in what the Lord himself commanded them to teach (Matt. 28:18-20). -Paul said concerning the Lord’s Supper, “I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” To disallow the force of apostolic example is to reject the authority of Christ and it is but a breath of difference from that to outright infidelity. ‘ Such an, attitude is a breeding ground for modernism, a hot bed for unbelief in the inspiration of the scriptures, disregard for and denial of divine authority in its completeness. We would be interested in learning from these self esteemed young scholars just how they think the Bible teaches anything.

We have seen it coming. Those who are aware of what has happened know that it has arrived and churches who call themselves “churches of Christ” are evidencing in what they do and say that these things are a reality in the churches of today. Many of those who are directly responsible for such modernism and infidelity are running around with their shirt-tails out shouting “fire” and they do not have sense enough or the honesty of heart to know who set it.

Many of our “intellectuals” are rapidly moving in the direction of not only repudiating New Testament authority but also toward denial of the divine origin of the scriptures in both word and teaching. This has always been the pattern of apostasy,. Neo-orthodoxy, in the theological world, says, “Oh! we believe the Bible to be the word of God, but we are not willing to recognize it as our -pattern of faith and practice, we must hear the ‘voices’ from within’ and determine for ourselves what is ‘truth and right.” Their religion and impetus to believe and act and be is more subjective, (from within) than objective (from without) – an “I think, I feel” sort of a guide rather than a “thus saith the Lord.”

With this growing sentiment among preachers, elders, and churches who call themselves Christian, there can be no path to follow but that ‘which leads to rebellion against authority and unbelief in the perfection and sufficiency of divine revelation.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, p. 2
June 20, 1974

By Denver Neimeier

During recent years we have seen many changes occur in our methods of travel, communication and those things which make up our daily activities. We are told that progress brings about such changes. While we might question whether some of the changes that have occurred are 14 progress,” it is granted that other changes have brought about those things that provide improvement.

However, I wonder if you are aware that even though changes have been made, some are a return to the way things were before later changes were made. For example, the first car I owned was purchased in 1941. The 1931 model car had a floor shift, one-piece windshield, and ventless windows. In the years that followed, auto manufacturers changed all of these things. The gear shift was moved to the steering post, a two-piece windshield replaced the older model, and vents were added to the front, side windows. However, ff you were to purchase a new car today, the salesman would point out that the “latest” thing is a floor shift, ventless windows, and a one-piece windshield. So, sometimes when things are changed, the change is a return to the way it was in the first place. Things do change – or do they?

The years have also brought changes in religious circles. The Roman Catholic Church within the past few years has had many changes; services are now conducted in English, there are no more meatless Fridays, etc. The so-called Protestant groups have also witnessed many changes which seek to improve their structure and activities. While these changes are not of personal interest since they bring about nothing that affect my service or worship of God, they are of interest in noting that at times there seems to be at least a small effort to return to the original. Things do change – or do they?

Even among God’s people, many things are different now from what they were even a few years ago. Preachers can no longer preach in places where they used to be welcome, even though they are preaching the same message now as then. Members of the Body of Christ who used to worship under the same roof, sit on the same seat, and even used the same song book to sing from, or the same Bible to study from, no longer do so. Those who used to work shoulder to shoulder for the growth of God’s kingdom now are working against each other. No longer can one declare himself to be a member of the Lord’s church and be welcomed by others who make the same declaration. Now there must first be the determining of what one is for and against before he can be fellowshipped. Things do change – or do they?

We are told that the changes that have been made among members of the Body of Christ in their work, worship, organization, etc. are those things which help to present a better image to the people of the world and which changes help us to reach more people to influence them in order to bring more to God. Things do change – or do they?

As these things have developed, there have been those who have accepted the changes ~and others who have rejected them, thus creating the division that already has been mentioned and, from all indications, which will get worse. Discussions, arguments, sermons, lectures, debates, bulletins, tracts, classes, and other efforts have been used to justify the need, or lack of it, for such changes. Many have read the teachings and writings of those who labored before us to find out how those of bygone years stood on these issues. And, I am sorry to say, some seem to think that because some well-known preacher, writer or elder of that era thought this or that, this constitutes sufficient proof to determine whether we accept or refuse a practice or action today. While at other times, the fact that such a thing has been practiced by members of the Church for years is all the authority needed to justify these changes. Things do change – or do they?

Why is it that people do not do as they say others ought to do? Why is it that those who encourage others to just accept the truth will not accept it for themselves? Questions are asked concerning “make-believe” situations concerning people, as if such would interfere with the teaching of God’s word. This sounds very much like the type of reasoning that has been heard from those who oppose baptism in order to have salvation when they ask the question,” What about the man off by himself somewhere, who reads his Bible, learns the truth, has no one around to baptize him, and dies before he finds someone to assist him?” Situations just will not and do not change what the Truth teaches.

As we hear, read, and are told of the changes that have come about within the Church, questions begin to arise such as: Were Peter, Paul, James, John, and others in New Testament times able to “present a better image,” “bring more people to God,” “create interest” etc. without these things that so many say are needed today? Or, did they have them and just forgot to tell us about them? If they accomplished the work they were supposed to do for the cause of -Christ without such, why can we not also accomplish the task today without such? Or, did they only do a partial job, and since their time someone, somewhere has found what was lacking and has been given the information by God in order for the complete work to be accomplished today. We ask the question in reference to God’s will, Things do change – or do they? The Bible says no. What say ye?

I grant that many changes which affect our lives improve our daily activities. However, the changes that occur within the Lord’s Body today are such that have come from man and not from God? God’s instruction for man is the same today as it was in New Testament times. The changes that have occurred are here because man has changed in his attitude toward what God has said. Things do change – but God’s will does not.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 13-14
June 13, 1974

By Ron Halbrook

The first time we ever went to see the campus of Abilene Christian College was in the Summer of 1972. Somewhere between Baytown and Abilene, Texas, we passed a building with a sign that gave us a real laugh. The best we remember, there were actually two instances of this ridiculousness. One sign announced something like this, “Congregation of the Church of God.” And the other, like unto it, said, “Church of God Church.” No disrespect was or is intended by our laugh-it is simply the genuine, spontaneous response to a glaring incongruity. Doubtless the people who erected these signs did so in ignorance. It would be a privilege to open the Bible with them and study how the Bible uses the word “church.”

Greek lexicons tell us “church” means a group or assembly called out for a particular purpose. This might apply to any group, not just a religious called-out-group. For instance, the “assembly” which gathered in confusion at Ephesus to cry out in behalf of Diana was a “church’-not because of their religious interest, but because they were called together or “grouped” for a common purpose. See Acts 19:32. Stephen referred to Moses leading the people who were called-out unto God for His possession and who were led out of Egypt for His purpose. This was “the church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). God’s people under the New Covenant are called out from the world unto Himself; they are assembled, grouped, gathered from all other people unto Him. Christ spoke of all the saved when he said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). As the gospel went into all the world, more and more people were added to this number who are washed in the blood of the Lamb through obedience to Christ (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38-47). One might speak of the church in a certain region or geographical area, or more specifically in one locality~meaning the saved only in the particular place spoken of. The saved who meet together at one place to fulfill the joint responsibilities (public worship, contribution, evangelism) which God’s people have are often spoken of as the church in that place. We read of “the church which was at Jerusalem,” “the church that was at Antioch,” “the church of God which is at Corinth … .. the church of the Thessalonians” (Acts 8:1; 13:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1).

The signs above mentioned do not use the word “church” in the senses found in the Bible. That is because they designate something not found in the Bible. The signs mean “A Local Church which is part of a denominational circle of local churches, Which Denomination Is Only One of Many Denominations Which Taken Together Are All the Saved.” The Church of God is the name adopted for that denominational circle. Since no such denominational circle is found in the Bible, the word “church” or phrase “church of God” is never used in the Bible of such a circle. The ignorance in this matter is no laughing matter, but to read the signs with Biblical definitions in mind is nothing but funny! A “church of God church” is a blatant redundance. If it’s a local church, then it’s a local church and it makes no sense at all to repeat the word church. That’s like saying, “Look at my car car.” If it’s a car, it’s a car. The only way one could speak Biblically of a church church is by stuttering like the country music star Mel Tillis! But then, the Bible does not stutter.

And, we had thought a Bible people speaking a Bible language could not “stutter” since the Bible does not. Now Abilene Christian College is not the church, but it does claim to be run by individual Christians and to teach the Bible. If the college, its publications, and its representatives are going to speak the language of Ashdod-or stutter after the fashion of those ignorant of Bible teaching-then it has no distinctive reason to exist. Well, here is why the last laugh’s on me. The March-April issue of A.C.C. Today, “published bi-monthly by Abilene Christian College’ ” just came in the mail. Page 10 reports an “alumni Citation Award” was given to Glenn Paden, Jr., who has distinguished himself for several things (Bible salesmanship, real estate executive, college degrees). Not the least of his accomplishments is this one: “Following his graduate work in 1959, he helped start a Church of Christ congregation in Suffolk County, New York” (emph. added).

Oh well, many of us have thought for some time these brethren have been leaving the Bible for denominational concepts. Denominational thinking naturally leads to denominational speech. But really it is not so funny to see such language used by those who have no excuse for it at all-it is just plain sickening.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 12-13
June 13, 1974